| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
| |
This fixes issue #933, effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
On deserialization, missing values for message types
are replaced with a "default" message.
|
|
|
|
| |
The included C# test will fail until the regenerated code is used, which is in the next commit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
expected to.
We should now have no conformance failures.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is expected to be the cause of the conformance test failures.
Generated code in next commit.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This is definitely not ready to ship - I'm "troubled" by the disconnect between a list of fields in declaration order, and a mapping of field accessors by field number/name. Discussion required, but I find that easier when we've got code to look at :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Changes in brief:
1. Descriptor is now the entry point for all reflection.
2. IReflectedMessage has gone; there's now a Descriptor property in IMessage, which is explicitly implemented (due to the static property).
3. FieldAccessorTable has gone away
4. IFieldAccessor and OneofFieldAccessor still exist; we *could* put the functionality straight into FieldDescriptor and OneofDescriptor... I'm unsure about that.
5. There's a temporary property MessageDescriptor.FieldAccessorsByFieldNumber to make the test changes small - we probably want this to go away
6. Discovery for delegates is now via attributes applied to properties and the Clear method of a oneof
I'm happy with 1-3.
4 I'm unsure about - feedback welcome.
5 will go away
6 I'm unsure about, both in design and implementation. Should we have a ProtobufMessageAttribute too? Should we find all the relevant attributes in MessageDescriptor and pass them down, to avoid an O(N^2) scenario?
Generated code changes coming in the next commit.
|
|
We'll see what I've missed when CI fails...
|